Nestorius

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NESTORIUS : UNDERSTANDING INCARNATION PROF. M. M. NINAN The Nature of the Kenosis (Self-Emptying) of the Eternal Son Given that the divine nature in Jesus was eternal and infinite while the human nature in Jesus was created and finite, one of the questions we ponder is just how these two natures could coexist in the one person. Could Jesus as both fully divine and fully human be, for example, simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent—qualities of his eternal, divine nature—while also possessing a limited and finite human power, a limited yet growing knowledge and wisdom, and a restricted ability to be only one place at one time—qualities of finite, human nature? It seems clear that some qualities of his eternal, divine nature are simply incompatible with his true and genuine human nature, such that it would be impossible for him truly to live as a human if that so-called human life was also one in which he exhibited fully divine qualities such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. In other words, would Jesus be truly and genuinely human if in his human experience he had limitless power, knowledge, wisdom, and spatial presence? The crux of the answer to these questions comes in how Paul in Philippians 2:5-8 expresses the kenosis, the self-emptying, of the eternal Son as he took on human nature. Here Paul writes: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” Notice some crucial features of this important passage. First, Paul makes clear that Christ Jesus, as the eternal Son of the Father, is fully God. He offers two expressions, each of which conveys the full deity of Christ. Paul writes that Christ existed in the “form of God” (v. 6), using the term morphē, which refers to the inner nature or substance of something, not its external or outward shape. So, while the English word form can convey merely the outward appearance of something (i.e., the shape or contour or facade of some object), not its inner reality, the Greek word morphē conveys just the opposite, as can be seen with Plato's “forms”—i.e., those substances of ultimate realities such as beauty, truth, justice, goodness, etc., that Plato thought existed eternally and apart from any material representation. The Greek morphē, then, is the inner substance or very nature of a thing, not its outer shape or appearance. That Paul intends this understanding can be seen further in his second use of morphē, when he says that Jesus took the “form [morphēn] of a servant” (Philippians 2:7). Surely it is evident that Paul does not mean that Jesus took on merely the outer appearance of a servant, implying perhaps that though he looked like a servant, he was not in his own heart and life a true servant. Just the opposite: Jesus took on the inner substance and very nature, i.e., the form (morphēn), of what it means to be a servant, and that to its highest expression. As a servant, he served to the utmost, as he was obedient to the point of death, even death on the cross. So again, “form” (morphē, Philippians 2:6, and morphēn, Philippians 2:7) must mean the very nature of something, not merely its outer appearance. Therefore, Paul’s point in Philippians 2:6 is clear: Jesus, being the “form of God,” exists in very nature as God, with the inner divine substance that is God’s alone. He is fully God since he exists “in the form [morphē] of God.” Paul also refers to Christ as possessing “equality [isa] with God” (Philippians 2:6), which likewise makes clear his full deity. Nothing is equal to God except God! As God declares of himself, through the prophet Isaiah, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me” (Isaiah 46:9; cf. Exodus 8:10; Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 3:24; 2 Samuel 7:22; 1 Kings 8:23;Psalms 71:19; Micah 7:18). Indeed, there is no god other than the one true and living God—so God is 35
NESTORIUS : UNDERSTANDING INCARNATION PROF. M. M. NINAN exclusively God—and there is no god who is like the one true and living God—so God is incomparably God. With this background in mind, Paul’s declaration that Christ possesses “equality with God” is stunning. It can mean only one thing: by virtue of the fact that no one can be equal to God but God himself, Christ, who possesses equality with God, must himself be fully God. Of course, as we often find where the deity of Christ is expressed, we see hints or outright declarations that someone other than Christ likewise is God. Since he is equal to God, this means that there is another who is God, in relation to whom Christ is his equal. So, as John puts it, the Word is both “with God” and is “God” (John 1:1), and Hebrews declares that Christ is the “exact imprint” of the nature of God (Hebrews 1:3). Likewise here in Philippians 2, Christ is both other than the one who is God (understood as the Father, no doubt) while he also is equal to this other one who is God and so is himself fully God. Second, when Paul writes that Christ “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Philippians 2:6), he cannot mean that Christ gave up equality with God or that he ceased being fully God. Since he is fully God, he cannot cease to be fully God. God is eternal, self-existent, immortal, and immutable, and thus he cannot cease to exist as God, nor can he fail to be fully God. Surely what Paul means is this: Christ being fully God, possessing the very nature of God and being fully equal to God in every respect, did not thereby insist on holding onto all the privileges and benefits of his position of equality with God (the Father) and thereby refuse to accept coming as a man. He did not clutch or grasp his place of equality with the Father and all this brought to him in such a way that he would refuse the condescension and humiliation of the servant role he was being called to accept. Just how he could accept his calling to become a man while being (and remaining!) fully God, we’ll explore next. But here it is crucial to see that Christ’s not “grasping” equality with God cannot rightly be taken to mean that Christ gave up being God or became in any way less than fully God when he took on also a fully human nature. No, rather, he did not grasp or clutch onto the privileged position, rights, and prerogatives that his full equality with God, his Father, afforded him, in order to fulfill his calling to become fully a man who would be, amazingly, servant of all. Third, as one who is fully God, Christ Jesus “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant” (Philippians 2:7). The word that here is translated “emptied himself,” ekenōsen (third aorist indicative of kenoō), means literally just this: that Christ “emptied himself” or “poured out himself.” Note that Paul is not saying that Christ emptied something from himself or poured something out of himself, as if in so doing he became less fully God than he was before (which, as we have seen, is impossible). Rather, he emptied himself; he poured out himself. That is, all of who Christ is as eternal God, all that he is as the one who is in the form of God and is equal with God, is poured out. Christ, then, as God remains fully God. He loses nothing of his divine nature, and no divine qualities are removed from him as he pours himself out. No, Christ remains in his divine nature fully who and what he is in his existence as the eternal second person of the Trinity. He has eternally been fully God, and now in the incarnation he pours out fully who he is as God, remaining fully God as he does so. The question then becomes just what this means—that Christ, the one who exists in the form of God (morphē) and as equal (isa) to God, pours himself out (ekenōsen). The answer comes, amazingly, in the three participles (particularly the first one) that follow ekenōsen. Christ poured himself out, taking the form of a servant. Yes, he pours out by taking; he empties by adding. Here, then, is a strange sort of math that envisions a subtraction by addition, an emptying by adding. What can this mean? In brief, what this must mean is this: Christ Jesus, existing and remaining fully who he is as God, accepts his divine calling to come to earth and carry out the mission assigned him from the Father. As the eternal Son of God, who is himself the form (morphē, i.e., very nature) of God, he must 36
Page 2 and 3: NESTORIUS UNDERSTANDING INCARNATION
Page 4 and 5: NESTORIUS : UNDERSTANDING INCARNATI
Page 20 and 21: o o NESTORIUS : UNDERSTANDING INCAR
Page 30 and 31: He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)
Page 88 and 89:
NESTORIUS : UNDERSTANDING INCARNATI
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
ARIANISM: WHO IS JESUS? PROF. M. M.
Page 116:
ARIANISM: WHO IS JESUS? PROF. M. M.
show all

Nestorius

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?